Armstrong – Table of Contents

first year of life and in which the susceptibility to postvaccination encephalitis is highest.
Without committing ourselves as to the etiology, it seems logical, therefore, that any
procedure which would influence the vaccinated individual toward a more effective
immunity response to vaccine might be of advantage in an attempt to prevent this
complication”.
Armstrong then described his observations that plump, healthy animals reacted
most severely to vaccine virus whereas scrawny, skinny animals reacted poorly or not at
all to the same virus. Another observer quoted by Armstrong stated that spare and thin
individuals tended to stand vaccination better than “plump, full-bloodied ones”. Of
interest in this regard is the observation noted by Dr. Tom Rivers in an earlier chapter
(22) where he noted the relative resistance of scrawny, urban youths to influenza virus
compared to the apparent susceptibility of healthy, vigorous, sturdy rural farm boys.
Armstrong also mentioned other laboratory studies where a previous infection tended to
ameliorate the course of a subsequent infection. He also drew on epidemiological
observations (23) related to factors influencing possible susceptibility to paralytic
poliomyelitis. He stated that the incidence of poliomyelitis, a less “virulent” disease,
seemed to be correlated positively with immunity to diphtheria as determined by a
negative Schick test (in a controlled population study) (23). He also showed that
susceptibility to scarlet fever, a more “virulent” disease, was also correlated, but to a
lesser extent, with immunity to diphtheria.
To test the implications of these observations, Armstrong reasoned as follows:
“Proceeding upon the homely fact that judicious exercise is essential for the functional
well-being of familiar tissues – even to bones and teeth – it may be assumed that the